What Book(s) Should I Buy?

[Delta]

I'm ordering Anarcho-Syndicalism by Rudolf Rocker from Amazon and I need another book or two to get me to the $25 free shipping mark. What book(s) should I buy?

I was thinking about a Chomsky book, but I've seen a lot of Chomsky talks, and I almost feel like any book he would write would be simply repeating the same stuff. Have others found this to be the case? If not, which book would you recommend?

I've never read the Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital. Would these be good? Or is it the equivalent of a biologist reading Origin of Species? (granted, my knowledge of communism is nothing compared to a biologist's knowledge of biology). Point being, if there's much better books for learning more about communism, I would prefer those. I expect that to be the case.

Also, what is your favorite book?

Thanks for the help comrades :D

[ComradeOm]

Check first if any of these works are available online. Almost all major Marxist works are on www.marxists.org. Of course its always good to actually own a physical copy.

Kapital is the most through critique of capitalism yet seen but its heavy on the economics. Most of the chapters can be summarised in simple language online. The Manifesto is a personal favourite of mine and gives the basics of Marxism in a very readable fashion. Too few people actually read this work.

[Comrade-Z]

If at all possible, definitely get Poland 1980-82: Class Struggle and the Crisis of Capital by Henri Simon. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0934868263/sr=8-1/qid=1153006890/ref=sr_1_1/104-7514619-1474334?ie=UTF8) There's a review of the book down at the bottom of the page. This is probably my favorite book ever.

I might also recommend The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure by Juliet B. Schor (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/046505434X/qid=1153007055/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-7514619-1474334?s=books&v=glance&n=283155). While it is written by a bourgeois economist and can be a bit misleading in parts of the analysis (stressing the possibility of reformism and neglecting to fully consider the influence of the reserve army of the unemployed on wages), its solid statistical evidence points clearly to the decadence of capitalism in the U.S. But don't put it at the top of your list.

Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto you can get from marxists.org. Don't bother with buying those. Same thing with most of Chomsky's stuff, which can be found in his section at zmag.org, most likely.

Also, if you are looking for a humorous book that, at the same time, spreads cynicism and ridicule about the current system, check out Dave Barry's Money Secrets (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400047587/qid=1153007919/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-7514619-1474334?s=books&v=glance&n=283155).

[Comrade-Z]

The Manifesto is a personal favourite of mine and gives the basics of Marxism in a very readable fashion. Too few people actually read this work.

I must second this. When I first read the manifesto in the beginning of the 11th grade for 20th century world history class, parts of it made some sense to me, but I really didn't get what he was driving at. Then, after being introduced to historical materialist thinking a bit here at revleft, I picked up the book again somewhat recently and suddenly it all made perfect sense. It's a brilliant piece of writing once you know what he is talking about. I think in school it is approached from the wrong angle and the wrong mindset so that you never get a sense of what Marx's big idea is. In school it is presented as an emotional, idealistic, utopian appeal to the working class of the time, but in reality it is an intelligent, rational, and scientific look at past and present society and its changing social conditions--and what how the proletariat can change the social conditions to suit its own interests.

For an enlightening intro to the Communist Manifesto, see this clever narration of the manifesto set to disney cartoons (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1oGIffyVVk&search=manifestoon). :lol:

[Axel1917]

I would go for both the manifesto and Capital. They are both very important works of Marxism.

[ack]

Screw that. Get Dune by Frank Herbert.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

If you're going for a chomsky, I reccomend "Hegemony or survival". It's more a U.S bash, but it's thrilling to watch him construct these arguments that just blow everyone out of the water. There is no objection you could raise to anything he says, apart from perhaps saying he should be even harder on them.

-Alex

[Led Zeppelin]

War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy.

[Marion]

Nah, if you're going for a Chomsky, read Understanding Power. It's a pretty big selection from various discussions he's had. The great thing about it is that the people in the audience occasionally ask the questions of Chomsky that you wish you could ask him and you get clarification on things that you'd feel stupid asking about. Plus the question and answer nature of it is likely to make it less turgid for some (given that some find his writing style difficult).

Of course, though, that's just if you're wanting a general Chomsky to understand his thoughts rather than his views on a specific situation.

[Jesus Christ!]

I have that Rocker book too and plan to read it soon. For Chomsky government in the future is a good quicky or hegemony or survival is good aswell.

[The Sloth]

for chomsky, i'll second "understanding power." i own a few chomsky books, and "understanding power" is definitely his best since it covers a good deal, and doesn't sacrifice substance.

as for non-political stuff...

"the remains of the day" by kazuo ishiguro
"giovanni's room" by james baldwin
"growth of the soil" by knut hamsun

some of the best novels ever written!

[Zero]

If you'd like to look up Chomsky, you can go to his website www.chomsky.info or listen to Radio Chomsky at http://210.48.73.163:8002 (32kbp/s Winamp stream) or http://210.48.73.163:8000 (112kbp/s Winamp stream)

[FriedFrog]

I'm reading Days of War, Nights of Love by the CrimethInc. collective at the moment.

Its very good, certainly inspirational.

As for my faviroute book, its a childrens book called The Silver Sword, about Polish kids trying to reach Switzerland during WWII. Theres still not a book I've read that has matched that.

[Year: 1]

Killing Hope by William Blum

A People's History of the United States by Dr. Howard Zinn

The State and Revolution by Lenin

Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism by Lenin

Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky

I can't stress these books enough!!!!!

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 05:18 PM
As for my faviroute book, its a childrens book called The Silver Sword, about Polish kids trying to reach Switzerland during WWII. Theres still not a book I've read that has matched that.
I think I read that years ago in school. Odd.

Anyways I'd also recommend The Russian Revolution by Shelia Fitzpatrick. A very concise history of the Russian Revolution. Understanding that event greatly aids in reading works from the time. If nothing else the names and places will make more sense.

[Delta]

I appreciate all the replies I've gotten to this. I'm going to make up my mind tonight and order them.

I've read both Zinn's People's History as well as Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent, and they were both quite good.


Anyways I'd also recommend The Russian Revolution by Shelia Fitzgearld

I'm guessing you mean Fitzpatrick? Looks interesting, has anyone else read this book and would recommend the same for a good background on the revolution?

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

The Butter Battle Book

a good account of the cold war...

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 09:28 PM
I'm guessing you mean Fitzpatrick? Looks interesting, has anyone else read this book and would recommend the same for a good background on the revolution?
My mistake. As I said the book is concise and forms the perfect introduction to the Revolution. Its not too detailed and was written with the uninformed in mind.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

This one! (http://www.cafepress.com/fpm_store.65694757)

[Delta]

I ordered Anarcho-syndicalism by Rocker, The Russian Revolution by Fitzpatrick, and Poland 1980-1982 by Simon. Thanks to all those that gave me suggestions :D

[CoexisT]

A Confederacy of Dunces

that book is fucking hilarious. seriously. one of the only books I've ever actually laughed out loud to.


edit: oh, it seems you're just looking for political books... nevermind then :)

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by Year: [email protected] 17 2006, 09:04 PM
The State and Revolution by Lenin
the state and revolution as a recommendation coming from an anarchist?

well, one might be able to rationalize that. after all, reading anti-anarchist books is a good way of developing an argumentative precision.. to put the leninist stuff to rest, once and for all.

=)

[che's long lost daughter]

On the non-political side, try reading books by Milan Kundera. he is a brilliant story-teller.

[nickdlc]

I ordered Anarcho-syndicalism by Rocker, The Russian Revolution by Fitzpatrick, and Poland 1980-1982 by Simon. Thanks to all those that gave me suggestions biggrin.gif Now all you have to do is scan them when you have the time and put them on the internet so we can read for free :)

[Year: 1]

Originally posted by Brooklyn-Mecca+Jul 18 2006, 03:46 AM--> (Brooklyn-Mecca @ Jul 18 2006, 03:46 AM)
Year: [email protected] 17 2006, 09:04 PM
The State and Revolution by Lenin
the state and revolution as a recommendation coming from an anarchist?

well, one might be able to rationalize that. after all, reading anti-anarchist books is a good way of developing an argumentative precision.. to put the leninist stuff to rest, once and for all.

=) [/b]
Lenin's book The State and Revolution is not pure anarchist but it is tending towards anarchism. He argues for a "semi-state", a "mini-state" does he not? The system he outlined in that book does not correspond to the actual system that was put in place in the Soviet Union. The chasm between the two systems is huge. In the end all true left-wing communists and revolutionary left anarchists differ very little except when to abolish the state.

I might add to this list Orwell's Homage To Catalonia.

Check this e-mail exchange I had with Noam Chomsky ([email protected])

Me:

I hope you can clear this matter up for me. I heard you said you disagree with the political system Lenin & Trotsky implemented in the Soviet Union but you admire Lenin's State And Revolution. I read that book some time ago and it inspired me. Why didn't Lenin implement those ideas in the Soviet Union? Was it because the allies invaded the country? Thanks a lot.


Noam Chomsky wrote:

One can speculate about Lenin's motives, but the fact is that his veering to the left, as in State and Revolution and the April Theses, was during the months when he was trying to gain popular support, April-October 1917. Some of the scholarly literature concludes, not implausibly in my view, that this was a kind of campaign oratory. Quite different from his stand before, or actions afterwards. The destruction of popular forces preceded the intervention.


Me:

Thanks for that message. One more thing. Is that work of Lenin--- State and Revolution a very important one? I mean can those theories apply to the USA?


Noam Chomsky wrote:

It's a very good book -- with the provisos [April Theses] I mentioned. The "theories," such as they are, are standard left libertarian, and are applicable anywhere, in my opinion.

[Zero]

Don't buy any of Orwell's books. You can get them off websites for free.

http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Year: 1+Jul 19 2006, 06:30 PM--> (Year: 1 @ Jul 19 2006, 06:30 PM)Lenin's book The State and Revolution is not pure anarchist but it is tending towards anarchism. He argues for a "semi-state", a "mini-state" does he not?[/b]
I'm assuming that you haven't actually read the book? State and Revolution is a detailed examination of the nature of the state in which its affirmed that, contrary to what anarchists expect, the state will continue to exist post revolution. It will be a "type of state", a proletarian state, but a state nonetheless. Anarchists come in for some criticism in the book for their denial of this.


Chomsky
One can speculate about Lenin's motives, but the fact is that his veering to the left, as in State and Revolution and the April Theses, was during the months when he was trying to gain popular support, April-October 1917. Some of the scholarly literature concludes, not implausibly in my view, that this was a kind of campaign oratory.
I can only question as to whether Chomsky has read the work either. S&R cannot possibly be described as "campaign oratory". The language of the book is strewn with Marxist jargon and assumes the reader is familiar with the basics of Marxism. The ABC of Communism it is not. I'm sure that it would be almost indescribable to the vast majority of Russians at the time, and indeed today.

S&R is targeted firmly at the European Marxist "scene" and is mostly concerned with criticising reformist attitudes of the day, particularly those of Kautsky.

[Year: 1]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Jul 20 2006, 04:01 PM--> (ComradeOm @ Jul 20 2006, 04:01 PM)
Originally posted by Year: [email protected] 19 2006, 06:30 PM
Lenin's book The State and Revolution is not pure anarchist but it is tending towards anarchism. He argues for a "semi-state", a "mini-state" does he not?
I'm assuming that you haven't actually read the book? State and Revolution is a detailed examination of the nature of the state in which its affirmed that, contrary to what anarchists expect, the state will continue to exist post revolution. It will be a "type of state", a proletarian state, but a state nonetheless. Anarchists come in for some criticism in the book for their denial of this.


Chomsky
One can speculate about Lenin's motives, but the fact is that his veering to the left, as in State and Revolution and the April Theses, was during the months when he was trying to gain popular support, April-October 1917. Some of the scholarly literature concludes, not implausibly in my view, that this was a kind of campaign oratory.
I can only question as to whether Chomsky has read the work either. S&R cannot possibly be described as "campaign oratory". The language of the book is strewn with Marxist jargon and assumes the reader is familiar with the basics of Marxism. The ABC of Communism it is not. I'm sure that it would be almost indescribable to the vast majority of Russians at the time, and indeed today.

S&R is targeted firmly at the European Marxist "scene" and is mostly concerned with criticising reformist attitudes of the day, particularly those of Kautsky. [/b]
I have read the work several times since it is my favorite book.

Lenin writes:

According to Engels, the bourgeois state does not “wither away", but is “abolished” by the proletariat in the course of the revolution. What withers away after this revolution is the proletarian state or semi-state.

Chapter 1 The State and Revolution

Like I said Lenin's work tends toward anarchism---meaning it inclines toward anarchism. I agree with Chomsky that Lenin did not put these ideas into practice because he destroyed the anarchist army that defeated the Whites in the Ukraine. What Lenin put into practice was the dictatorship of the Central Committee which degenerated into a personal dictatorship of Stalin.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Year: [email protected] 20 2006, 10:04 PM
According to Engels, the bourgeois state does not “wither away", but is “abolished” by the proletariat in the course of the revolution. What withers away after this revolution is the proletarian state or semi-state.
I see nothing anarchist about that statement. Anarchists reject the notion of the proletarian state. To them the state, be it bourgeois or proletarian, is the great evil.

State and Revolution was aimed at the opportunists within the Marxist movement who contested that the bourgeois state could somehow be utilised by the proletariat. Time and time again he hammers home Marx’s analysis that the bourgeois state must be destroyed and that a classless society was desirable. This is as far as his agreement with the anarchists goes.

Lenin merely re-established what Marx originally intended, and which is now taken as standard, that the destruction of the bourgeois state is necessary but it will in turn be replaced with the proletarian state. As "transient" as this state may it is most definitely a state. Contrast with the anarchist position that seeks to abolish the state completely overnight. Lenin recognises that the state is a product of class divisions, as he goes into in depth in the first chapter.

I highly recommend that you re-read Lenin’s analysis of Engels’ discourse with the anarchists (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch04.htm#s2). Even here however the target is very much the Kautskyites.

[Red Heretic]

Imperialism: The Final Stage of Capitalism by Lenin (get it here) (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0745310354/sr=8-4/qid=1153438411/ref=sr_1_4/102-8221410-4228930?ie=UTF8)

and

The Science of Revolution by Lenny Wolffe (get it here (http://www.alibris.com/search/detail.cfm?chunk=25&mtype=&qisbn=0898510368&S=R&bid=8687204156&pbest=&pqtynew=&page=1&matches=4&qsort=p))

[Year: 1]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Jul 20 2006, 11:18 PM--> (ComradeOm @ Jul 20 2006, 11:18 PM)
Year: [email protected] 20 2006, 10:04 PM
According to Engels, the bourgeois state does not “wither away", but is “abolished” by the proletariat in the course of the revolution. What withers away after this revolution is the proletarian state or semi-state.
I see nothing anarchist about that statement. Anarchists reject the notion of the proletarian state. To them the state, be it bourgeois or proletarian, is the great evil.

State and Revolution was aimed at the opportunists within the Marxist movement who contested that the bourgeois state could somehow be utilised by the proletariat. Time and time again he hammers home Marx’s analysis that the bourgeois state must be destroyed and that a classless society was desirable. This is as far as his agreement with the anarchists goes.

Lenin merely re-established what Marx originally intended, and which is now taken as standard, that the destruction of the bourgeois state is necessary but it will in turn be replaced with the proletarian state. As "transient" as this state may it is most definitely a state. Contrast with the anarchist position that seeks to abolish the state completely overnight. Lenin recognises that the state is a product of class divisions, as he goes into in depth in the first chapter.

I highly recommend that you re-read Lenin’s analysis of Engels’ discourse with the anarchists (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch04.htm#s2). Even here however the target is very much the Kautskyites. [/b]
I said it tends toward anarchism. Do you know what the term "tends" means? The proletarian state is not a true state in the conventional sense of the word, but a mini-state, a semi-state---Lenin says so in S & R.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Main Entry: 2 tend
Function: intransitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, to stretch, direct oneself, from Anglo-French tendre -- more at TENDER

1 : to move, direct, or develop one&#39;s course in a particular direction <cannot tell where society is tending>
2 : to exhibit an inclination or tendency : CONDUCE <tends to be optimistic>

"The Commune was no longer a state in the proper sense of the word"--this is the most theoretically important statement Engels makes. After what has been said above, this statement is perfectly clear. The Commune was ceasing to be a state since it had to suppress, not the majority of the population, but a minority (the exploiters). It had smashed the bourgeois state machine. In place of a special coercive force the population itself came on the scene. All this was a departure from the state in the proper sense of the word. And had the Commune become firmly established, all traces of the state in it would have "withered away" of themselves; it would not have had to “abolish” the institutions of the state--they would have ceased to function as they ceased to have anything to do.

To prevent the true meaning of his struggle against anarchism from being distorted, Marx expressly emphasized the "revolutionary and transient form" of the state which the proletariat needs. The proletariat needs the state only temporarily. We do not after all differ with the anarchists on the question of the abolition of the state as the aim. We maintain that, to achieve this aim, we must temporarily make use of the instruments, resources, and methods of state power against the exploiters, just as the temporary dictatorship of the oppressed class is necessary for the abolition of classes. Marx chooses the sharpest and clearest way of stating his case against the anarchists: After overthrowing the yoke of the capitalists, should the workers "lay down their arms", or use them against the capitalists in order to crush their resistance? But what is the systematic use of arms by ne class against another if not a "transient form" of state?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/